Who's Right?

Lee Berman · 01 Dec 2010, 18:51 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee Berman)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 13:51:03 -0500
Subject: (urth) Who's Right?
Message-ID: <SNT123-W4850036C247BBF2002B80CF260 at phx.gbl>

>James Wynn: I should also say, Gerry, that I don't follow every thread really 
>closely so I'm not exactly clear what you said to which Lee took offense..

Oh, I am not offended by criticism or conservative gatekeepers, though I can see 
how that conclusion could be reached from my OP. Actually, that would be very 
hypocritical of me since, in my participation on another board devoted to a rather
cryptic and mysterious artist (David Lynch), I myself tend to function as such a
gatekeeper (hopefully in a nice way; I usually don't like meanness). I was just interested 
in what people might say if asked about their own such role here.

Since the topic is up, Gerry did say something recently which left me puzzled, though not 
offended. It was something like, "your theory on Shadow Children is bad but it is much 
better than your abyssmal theory on Father Inire".

There are others who take a similar view of my Inire theory (still a work in progress)
but I am confused as to why it might provoke such rancor. The major premises it is based 
on are:

1. BotNS draws from Greek and other pagan mythology

2. Greek and other pagan mythological gods often changed their shape and size and walked
the earth in various human and animal guises.

3. It is a not-uncommon SF trope to conflate pagan gods and angels with aliens.

4. In BotNS, Father Inire is an alien.

5. In Tzadkiel/Zak we see an alien/angelic creature appear and reappear in various animal 
and human guises.

There are dozens of minor bits of evidence which can be added but just given these five
premises I think it is very reasonable to consider that Father Inire appears and reappears
in BotNS in various human and animal guises. This theory has helped me onto a path of
understanding some mysteries about this story which had bothered me for years.

I don't think or expect it would be so helpful for everyone else but is it really that bad?
Perhaps Gerry or others can explain which of the five premises is false, irrelevant 
or otherwise invalid, thus making my theory of Father Inire the archetype of bad theories.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net